[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1480708489.3947.3.camel@buserror.net>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 13:54:49 -0600
From: Scott Wood <oss@...error.net>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, yanjiang.jin@...driver.com,
benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org
Cc: linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
jinyanjiang@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: cputime: fix a compile warning
On Fri, 2016-12-02 at 15:15 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> yanjiang.jin@...driver.com writes:
>
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputime.h
> > b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputime.h
> > index 4f60db0..4423e97 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputime.h
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputime.h
> > @@ -228,7 +228,8 @@ static inline cputime_t clock_t_to_cputime(const
> > unsigned long clk)
> > return (__force cputime_t) ct;
> > }
> >
> > -#define cputime64_to_clock_t(ct) cputime_to_clock_t((cputime_t)(ct
> > ))
> > +#define cputime64_to_clock_t(ct) \
> > + (__force u64)(cputime_to_clock_t((cputime_t)(ct)))
> Given the name of the function is "cputime64 to clock_t", surely we
> should be returning a clock_t ?
That was my initial reaction but it seems that this function has meant "return
a u64 that is otherwise like clock_t" since before the beginning of git
history. Both generic implementations return u64, including
jiffies_64_to_clock_t which does so explicitly.
-Scott
Powered by blists - more mailing lists